RUTHFULLY YOURS

A non-Muslim can rise and become a darling of today’s neo-Ottoman Turks. He can win hearts and minds in important offices in Ankara — and a bright career. But to maintain his fortunes, he must remain loyal to the official Islamist line, both in deed and rhetoric.

That is the kind of collective psychology into which Turkey’s ruling Islamists force non-Muslims: either become a collaborator or…

Last October, Etyen Mahcupyan, a leading Turkish Armenian intellectual, “liberal” writer and columnist, was appointed as “chief advisor” to Turkey’s Prime Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu. At first glance, this was good news in a country where Islamists privately adhere to the old Ottoman “millet” system, in which non-Muslims were treated as second-class (if not third-class) citizens.

An Islamic terrorist leader who jumped straight from his job at the Clinton Foundation to a post with Egypt’s jihadist Muslim Brotherhood has received a life sentence back home for seditious activities.

It provides yet more damning proof of the ties of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to totalitarian Muslims while throwing more light on the shady goings-on of the terrorist-friendly international cash-for-favors clearinghouse known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. (The endlessly corrupt foundation, which has taken oceans of cash from Islamic regimes that persecute women and religious dissenters, was profiled at length [2] by this writer last week in FrontPage).

The worst Clinton marriage isn’t the one between Hillary and Bill. It’s between Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. The Democrats don’t want Hillary, but they’re stuck with her anyway.

Since her last loss, the Clintons have made it clear that 2016 will be Hillary’s year. Making her the inevitable candidate, scared off other candidates and their donors. Hillary camped out on the Democratic ticket the way that Jeb tried and failed to do on the Republican ticket.

Hillary has the Democratic Party where she wants it. By scaring off every serious candidate, the party has no choice but to get behind her. And the more it gets behind her, the more it’s stuck with her

A Muslim Brotherhood charade in the American heartland.

Currently underway in the Heartland of America is an experiment in interfaith dialogue and coexistence: the Tri-Faith Initiative in Omaha, Nebraska. The goal of the Tri-Faith Initiative is to have a synagogue, a mosque, and a church located on a common piece of land, each with its own separate building; the Tri-Faith hopes to later add a fourth building as a shared Tri-Faith Center. The location for this venture is 35 acres in the Sterling Ridge development in Omaha.

On April 25, the New York Times, the paper that placed second [2] as the most dishonest reporter in 2014 and placed first [3] the preceding year, ran the following headline, “Israeli Police Officers Kill Two Palestinian Men [4].” The article was authored by Diaa Hadid; more on her later. Not until one starts reading the article does one understand why the shootings occurred and under what circumstances. In both instances, Israeli security forces came under attack by knife and hatchet wielding Palestinian terrorists and in at least one of those incidents, the attacker succeeded in stabbing an Israeli, though thankfully, his injuries were non-life threatening.

Clearly Hadid has difficulty understanding (or accepting) the concept of cause and effect – terrorist attempts to stab Israeli and Israeli responds by defending himself and shooting terrorist. Consider the manner in which other news outlets covered the event. The Jerusalem Post ran the following headline in connection with precisely the same story; “Terrorist shot dead after stabbing Border Policeman in Hebron [5].” The left-leaning Ha’aretz ran something similar; “Palestinian tries to stab police officers in Jerusalem and is shot dead, police says [6].” And the Boston Herald noted the following; “Israeli police: 2 Palestinians shot dead after knife attacks [7].”

Hadid also used the article to remind readers of an anti-Arab terrorist attack perpetrated by an Israeli that occurred more than 21 years ago and resulted in the deaths of 29. Absent from her reportage of course is the Arab pogrom, massacre and expulsion of the peaceful Jewish community of Hebron in 1929 that resulted in the deaths of 69 civilians. Nor does she bother noting that following the Arab occupation of Hebron in 1948, Arabs embarked on a systematic campaign to eradicate all vestiges of Jewish presence in the city. The ancient Jewish cemetery of Hebron (which incidentally, contained the bodies of some of the victims of the 1929 massacre) was desecrated and synagogues were either destroyed or converted into animal pens.

The ethnically Jewish atheist leader of Britain’s Labour Party (pictured; yes, I’m too kind to post one of those grotesque snaps online showing him making hard work of chomping through a bacon sandwich recently) has vowed to outlaw “Islamophobia” if, by some unhappy mischance, he should end up as Britain’s prime minister next month.

Britain’s “first Jewish prime minister,” according to him, blithely choosing to forget the Tory Benjamin Disraeli, who although baptised in childhood was gloriously conscious of his Jewishness, and dubbed “the Hebrew conjuror”.

Miliband told the editor of the UK-based The Muslim News:

“We are going to make it an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime.

Bernard Schwartz, chief executive officer of Loral Space &
Communications, tells The New York Times he considers President Clinton
a friend, “but not the kind of friend that you can call upon for
favors.”
We’re supposed to believe that Schwartz invested $1.3 million in
Clinton’s political campaigns without the expectation of special
treatment. If that’s true, you would expect Loral stockholders to demand
an explanation for such reckless disregard of their interests. I doubt
you’ll see such a move. Because Loral got plenty of bang for its buck.
“I can say absolutely, categorically, I have never spoken with the
president about any Loral business, except on one occasion,” he says.
Notice the careful wording of that statement. Never … except on one
occasion. Furthermore, it’s clear Schwartz and his company did ask the
president and his administration for favors — for special treatment –
on more than one occasion.

Robert B. Young, M.D., is a psychiatrist who also writes for Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership at DRGO.us.
Being disagreeable has become a justification for censorship.

The current notion that we must avoid hurting anyone’s feelings is becoming oppressive. Particularly in academia, deviation from this standard can lead to educational or career consequences. Speaking up for gun rights, for instance, is virtually verboten; even a seven-year-old boy who chewed a Pop-Tart into the vague shape of a gun was punished by school authorities, who suspended him for brandishing the pastry in play.

Now a court has jumped on the bandwagon. On April 27, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided Friedman v. City of Highland Park, Illinois, voting two to one to back the city’s banning of certain firearms and magazine capacities, partly based on feelings: “If it has no other effect, Highland Park’s ordinance may increase the public’s sense of safety.#…#If a ban on semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit.” Left unexamined is how anyone’s feelings are more important than actual risk, or how the court can override the Bill of Rights. As the dissenting judge correctly stated, “Both the ordinance and this court’s opinion upholding it are directly at odds with the central holdings of Heller and McDonald.”

Most Republican presidential contenders are trying to woo GOP megadonor Sheldon Adelson, who in 2012 demonstrated his ability to bankroll a campaign almost singlehandedly when he kept former House speaker Newt Gingrich’s presidential prospects alive long after most expected him to bow out of the race. But in the Sheldon primary, according to multiple sources, one top candidate is already a dead man.

That’s former Florida governor Jeb Bush, whose aides have, for the past several months, been making overtures to Adelson in an attempt to get him to open his wallet to a Bush super PAC that is expected to raise record sums. But at this point, it looks like none of that money will come from Adelson. “I think he’s lost the Sheldon primary,” says the leader of a top conservative group. The bad blood between Bush and Adelson is relatively recent, and it deepened with the news that former secretary of state James Baker, a member of Bush’s foreign-policy advisory team, was set to address J Street, a left-wing pro-Israel organization founded to serve as the antithesis to the hawkish American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

I once had a boss who gave me some great advice, not just for managing people but for judging politicians: You forgive mistakes; you punish patterns. Everybody screws up. But if someone won’t learn from his mistakes and try to correct his behavior, then he either doesn’t think it was a mistake, he just doesn’t care, or he thinks you’re a fool. The one indisputable takeaway from Peter Schweizer’s new book, Clinton Cash, is that Bill and Hillary Clinton fit one or all of those descriptions.

Let us recall Marc Rich, a shady billionaire indicted for tax evasion and defying trade sanctions with Iran during the U.S. hostage crisis. Rich fled to Switzerland to escape prosecution. He hired Jack Quinn, a former Clinton White House counsel, to lobby the administration for a pardon. Quinn sought help from then–deputy attorney general Eric Holder, who advised Quinn to petition the White House directly — advice Holder later regretted. On the last day of his presidency, Bill Clinton pardoned Rich.